so, do i have questions? a lot. do i have anger? a lot. i mean, i love the island. i love raising my kids there. no, they don't have to be on 3rd street, they don't have to be on tl. it's a safest place in the city. if we're in danger, let me know where i can go. we'll get in a boat if we have to. just let us know. thank you. >> thank you, ms. connolly. (applause) hello, my name is la shandra price, i'm a resident of treasure island. most and foremost i am a concerned parent, also a member of good neighbors, also a member of treasure island health network. and i'm sorry that i have to stand here right now and have this conversation. i'm sorry that i've already been through this when i was living in hunters point. i'm sorry that i used to be a hazmat technician and [speaker

not understood] any of these agencies had my family and my health in their best interest. it concerns me that -- and you couldn't even get with the ceo on the 5%. we're talking about 5% here. and they haven't even agreed on that. you have them saying one thing. you're telling me everything is safe. this is where i live. this is where my children are being raised. this is where i am concerned that my entire community is going to become one huge question. i grew up in hunters point in the bayview area so i know about the hair loss. i know about the high health risk as far as that ethnic group. i know that that's the highest rate of cancer in san francisco. i talked to my doctor, you know. and i hate to see the same thing going on over there that happened there that is still continuing as far as what they're being told and what's being done. i hate to see this coming to treasure island because that means i'm going to have to move

again eventually. i do not doubt that. it scares me that ms. espinola said what had he said because it has too much truth to it. so, you're telling me there's no radiation on the island and at these levels are normal, then what is wrong? there are too many things going on health wise for it to be a coincidence. her daughter is not the only one with gastrointestinal problems. my daughter is not the only one with skin problems. my children are not the only ones having breathing problems. okay, my neighbor's dog is not the only one with big old bare patches and fur missing. this is happening all over the island. i can name every street on that island and give you at least three incidents of the same thing and it doesn't make sense. if it's not the radiation, is it the infrastructure? part of treasure island has been bought from hunters point shipyard. what is going on? the water was green, mine was brown. after i had that water sitting

on my table for three weeks, i watched the brown settle to the bottom. now, what is going on with me when i get in the shower, when i wash the dishes? how do we double-check this? i know we live on landfill, but when is the last time the infrastructure has been checked? when is -- how can you assure me the ground is not rolling around up under the water coming to the surface and affecting us the way that we believe it has been affecting us? if it's not the radiation, if you can prove to me that it's not the radiation and everything is radiation wise is normal, then what is the problem with the water? what is going on with our children? what is going on with us not getting the information that we need? and one question that i have -- and i know i'm running out of time -- what is the agreement between [speaker not understood] and the navy? what is in the agreement that wasn't in my lease? what are the specifics as to why i cannot dig in this ground? what are the specifics as to how it is exactly affecting me? what is -- what is your normal

range? because anything that is affecting our community as it is being affected now is abnormal to me. thank you. (applause) >> thank you, ms. pryce. did you have a question? hi, my name is jeff kline, i'm a 13 year resident of treasure island. i really appreciate the rules committee taking time to have this meeting, hearing on radiology -- radiological contamination issues. i appreciate your staying. for a late afternoon, late evening here. there's a lot of questions that still seem to be remaining and there are obviously three main modes of contamination, media as they call them, air, soil and water.

we heard at the rib meeting air and monitoring. we had a lot of questions about that and the dust. that's a lot of technical stuff that's not easy for residents to understand and address. we just heard about the water and i can give you another island account. my own, my water was green two months ago. previously it was brown on occasion. we heard the water board's opinion saying, well, the soil -- the groundwater is contaminated, but we're not responsible for the testing of the tap water. there is no testing of the tap water. they say it's fine when it comes from hetch hetchy, but it's clearly, you know, when it's brown or green, there's something wrong when it's coming out of our tap. and the soil, now, it was said by ms. brownell there is a restriction on our lease we are not allowed to dig. that is not correct. our current lease says it is recommended that we do not dig.

now, this has gone back and forth tremendously. 2004 we were prohibited from digging at all. 1999, there were no restrictions on digging. but [speaker not understood] which was presented to us for the new year said in the house rules, "shall not dig." that addendum has not been approved, has not been adopted. now, there is a gentleman, mr. gantner last year sent letters to the mayor, and copies to [speaker not understood], mr. timoff responded. and mr. gantener sent a second letter to mr. timoff, is the city going to disclose to the

residents of treasure island and he listed 13 questions and issues. : he raised the issue of liability. this letter was dated december 21st, 2011. now, the timing of addendum re is s.p.r.thly suspicious because it seems the city chose not to address these issues, not to inform the residents, but instead to try and change our lease to eliminate all our protections to force us -- to impose a restriction on digging in the backyard, "shall not" and restrict our right under state law to obtain any remedies. if we are -- suffer harm or damages from contamination, construction, any other issues. you look at addendum re, and you will see we are being harmed by language, screwed out of our rights and i think this is the root cause. i think this radiation issue that was not disclosed in the [speaker not understood] is the reason you tried the

shenanigans with addendum rates. (applause) >> thank you. one more speaker card, saul bloom. if there are any other speakers, feel free to line up i guess on your right-hand side of the podium. supervisors, thank you. my name is saul bloom. i'm with [speaker not understood]. sorry for the computer. as i get older it's hard for me to remember what i'm supposed to be saying. i wanted to basically mention we have not seen the reports from cdph and their surveys of the residential backyards and areas of interest. i hope we get a copy of them because we would like to be able to review them as we've reviewed the historical radiological assessment. we were made [speaker not understood] the current conditions on ti pose a hazard to health and human environment. however, we do have a number of concerns about what we're hearing. for example, cdph itself seems to be an agency of two minds

when it comes to treasure island. on the one hand, if you look at cdph's comment and historical radiological assessment quoted in the papers, you would see an agency that appears to be extremely concerned about the quality of the characterization of the radiation out there. on the other hand, when you hear reports and see other materials that are being distributed among the tenants that say there is no health problems, you become confused about what the agency's true position is relative to this problem. and, so, it's difficult for us to expect the public or organizations like my own to have clarity about the cdph's position when cdph's position seems to be in and of itself unclear. as to gamma surface surveys, my consultants tell me that while radium is a rather robust source of gamma, other sources of radiation that may be present on the island may be less so. so, it's important to know how

the instruments were calibrate and had for what brad sources in order for us to understand whether or not they are actually doing as much as they could do to determine whether or not there was -- there is a problem out there and what kind of problem. there is a generalized problem with a description of brad exposure. there are three mechanisms by which individuals become impacted by brad exposure. the first is what's been discussed largely in all of these meetings, which is external radiation. that is ambient radiation acting upon the skin of an individual. background only applies to exposure outside of the body. but there are two additional pathways we all talk much about, inhalation and ingestion. it is these pathways of exposure that has me concerned. and it is through these pathways that my [speaker not understood] of that material can enter the body over time and cause substantial danger. so, we really need to know how we're looking at these problems and we need to become very aggressive consumers of

information. when it comes to environmental health data with regard to this site, [speaker not understood] remains concerned. we remain involved and we're here to help in terms of analyzing the data that's being presented to the community. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. bloom. is there any other public comment? seeing none, okay. i'm sorry, you have to have not spoken already. i apologize. we can always keep the dialogue going. hello, my name is irma. i live in the island since the year 2000. i have been reviewing the papers that we have been given that were from there. what disturbs me, on top of everything that my neighbors

have said, is that in this form, the department of public health forum, i don't see my block. i am now interested to know what happened in the [speaker not understood] if there is contamination or not. nobody lives there. i don't see here in this report reflected the neighborhood that people are living. i don't see here exposition drive, i don't see northpoint drive, i don't see marina, i don't see avenue v. people who are here, they know what i'm talking about. i don't see here our neighborhood. who cares about the [speaker not understood], the catholic charities, what's over there? the neighborhood don't need

catholic charities to begin with. i mean, this building 3, site 31, i don't see here our neighborhood. this is not the housing area. the life learning center garden area, who lives there? who lives there? why in this report nobody is checking, again, marina, northpoint, bayside, where people are really living, children are growing up every day? what type of job is this? this is a slap in our face. insult on top of injury. who cares about the winery, for god sake? [speaker not understood] in the island. there is probably no one here at all over there and you are testing, whoever it is responsible -- the department of public health -- are testing

their facilities because that's business. isn't it the rest of us, we are not business, we are low-income. what type of job is this? who is responsible? who is the california department of public health hunters point? -- help? that person should resign. we are hundreds of families, thousands of people and i don't see anybody reflected here. this is a shame. it's a shame. i want to, very soon, another report that i can see where we all can see our neighborhood tested, not the winery, not the gardens. thank you. (applause) >> thank you. thank you, irma. we do have the chair of the tida board of directors, here.

>> good evening, supervisors. linda richardson. i think it's very important, and i want to congratulate you, supervisor kim and supervisor campos, for holding this hearing. i think we have to take the opportunity to set the record straight to allow the residents to come out here and express their concerns. i think it is very, very important, though, that you supervisors and the public understand and know that the treasure island development authority is working very closely with the supervisors and also with the city. the public also needs to understand that there are many regulatory agencies that are involved in the clean-up of the treasure island. you have the department of navy. you have department of toxic substance and control. and you also have the california department of public

health. in addition, you also have the usepa involved, environmental protection agency. tida has hired an independent, which is independent of all to help us review the data. at the end of the day, all these regulatory agencies, the data that they produced, they have to be brought to the attention of the public as you, supervisor kim, your first hearing of treasure island. you invited all the regulatory agencies. they are working very independently of each other. let me stress, the navy is working independently from the department of toxic substance, from the epa. and, so, for the assurances that we need, for the city and county of san francisco, we also have the san francisco city and department of public

health, barbara garcia, amy, [speaker not understood] working independently. so, we have the balance that we need in order for us to obtain the date a. all we wanted to convey to the public is that the city and county of san francisco is taking the clean up of the shipyard and also the san francisco navy shipyard very seriously. so, we need to provide the forum for people to come out. but we also wanted everybody to know that as these facts, as data are being produced, that we will bring them to the public arena and we will debate them and we will share the information. and in the interim, all kinds of metrics are in place to make sure the clean up areas are secured. to make sure the trucks that come in and out of the island are secured. so, we are working with -- all hands on deck. and if there is anything that i really wanted to convey lastly

is that treasure island, we have competent staff. they are working with the supervisors, they are working with the regulatory agencies, and we are also going the extra mile to make sure that the public understands in detail the clean up that is involved so that we can protect human health and also protect the integrity of the clean up. so, thank you again for holding this and i know we will be back. and when we hold a hearing, supervisors, we would like to invite you to our hearing also, because we believe that tida also must take the leadership in the clean up. and thank you so much for your time. >> thank you, chair richardson. is there any other public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i just want to thank all the residents who took the time out to come out to city hall. you know, officially we did want to have this hearing actually out on the island. but because it was such a timely issue, we were not able

to do that without pushing the hearing out till november. so, i thought timeliness was actually more important than location. so, i do want to recognize the people took the time to come all the way out here, given some of the service interruptions we've seen on the 108 as well, so, thank you. i think there were a couple of comments and questions that were brought up through public comment, and i was hoping that either someone -- either tida or dph could address some of these questions. i do want to let members of the public know we have been working really closely with the team at tida. meg l and miriam have been making sure we get all the answers we need and had get them answered in a way that was as simple as possible. i think that was just a very challenging task, unfortunately, but they really did meet with dtsc and cdph and really gave them a hard time about how they were responding to the questions and the timing of the news, too, it was not appropriate for the media to announce the radiological

impact of the navy themselves. the navy needs to take ownership over how information is disseminated to residents because that creates the miss trust. even if the island is safe, if it is safe for residents, i think the miss trust is understandable and i think we need to do everything that we can as a city to ensure that we are getting the answers that we need and any of the contracting work that's taking place by the navy for the clean up that we have to monitor that to the best of our ability. so, a couple of issues had come up and i was hoping that we could get some of those questions addressed. one of the questions was why is it that only certain areas got further assessments. why were they primarily places of business, a child care center, why wasn't it in the neighborhood? i think [speaker not understood] to that question was the empty houses on 1231 and 12 33 and what does it mean for the neighbors who walk their dogs in the area, et

cetera, is it safe because that area is not [speaker not understood]. that's the first question, then i'll ask a couple more. >> thank you very much, supervisor. again, amy brownelle with the san francisco health department. the question is why certain areas were scanned by the california department of public health and then they sent the reports about that information. again, remember that the new information came out in the supplemental memorandum and these new areas were designated as radiologically impacted which does not mean there is contamination problem. it means there is a possibility that you need to investigate the areas. and, so, the concern was one of those areas in particular was a residential area. so, we wanted to respond very quickly and asked california department of public health to scan those newly designated areas where people were living and working to verify that there wasn't any current health

and safety concerns. and then we -- in addition, those five extra areas, the light blue areas on the map, this was sent to the residents october 5th where additional high traffic areas that they wanted to verify that there wasn't any concern. so, some of the other residential areas, there is no concerns. there's no evidence of past contamination. there's no reason to suspect that there is any radiological contamination. >> so, if you could just be clear about that. one of the questions is why wasn't it the neighborhood areas weren't assessed? if they were not assessed, is because -- >> there was no reason -- it was not identified as an impacted area. no evidence of any contamination. >> the only areas that were surveyed were the areas that were surveyed because they were identified as potential sites by the navy? >> there's two categories. there was potential sites. on the map it's the orange hatched areas.

and in addition there were five areas of high traffic areas and high-use areas where we asked them to additionally assess to just verify. >> okay, thank you. and then about the 1231-12 33, this was brought up. the question was is it okay for the neighbors to walk their dogs because the area is not [speaker not understood] off. >> my understanding is if it is okay, i am not familiar with those exact house numbers. >> could you please follow-up? >> yes, i can follow-up on that one. >> great. one of the other questions -- a couple of members had brought up the issue of the pipes. and how can we ensure that the pipes are free from contamination since they are below ground? >> so, i think people understand the water comes from hetch hetchy. but are we worried about contamination from the pipes that are below ground, probably below the 12 feet that's being assessed and surveyed.

and what can we do if we do find green and brown water, is there a way to get that tested, is there someone they can call? * >> so, again, sfpd is in charge of operating the system. and they are doing the required -- they're assisting and working with the navy, i believe, so make sure that they get the water tested so verify that it meets all drinking water standards and they're required to do that. another fact that people should know is that because it's a water delivery system, it's under pressure. and, so, the water is in the pipe flowing out. the contamination is not flowing in because that's just how the water systems work. and, so, in general the rule of thumb is it is not of concern because the water is the clean water from hetch hetchy is coming through the pipes. and if there is any -- i know that old systems can have looks. the water would flow out. you wouldn't have contamination. as far as the green inbound

water, i would need tida or sfpuc to answer the question about that. >> okay. so, maybe i'll have someone from tida address that question in particular. and whether people can use the hotline to call in if they put that water in a cup and some of the residents have said that they do. thank you, mr. timoff. >> thank you, madam chair. to address the question on water quality, the puc does test annually for chemicals of concern. we can report back on those findings, but to date the water quality out on treasure island has been tested to show no human health safety concerns. having said that, because of some of the recent comments we have received, the puc is currently going to be conducting water coming -- conducting testings from water coming out of the actual tap. so, we're working on getting that scheduled for the end of october. >> thank you, mr. timoff, i appreciate that. supervisor campos. >> thank you.

if i could ask that -- her to come back. >> ms. brownell? >> yes. sorry. and, again, i want to thank everyone who has been working on this. i appreciate that. a lot of work has gone into this and i want to appreciate the work from the treasure island staff for their responsiveness. i guess one question that i have, and i appreciate everything that you have said is i understand all the things that have been done, and i understand, you know, that many tests have been, you know, done in the last few months. i also feel that part of the responsibility for us is not

only to, you know, follow the rules and the guidelines that are in place by these various agencies, but to the extent possible, really go the extra mile. and, so, even though there was a reason why we have tested specific areas on the island, what's wrong with testing some of these neighborhood sites? i mean, there is nothing that precludes us from doing it. we may believe that for different reasons there's no need scientifically or otherwise to do it. but i don't see that we lose anything by going that extra step and actually following the suggestion of the residents. so, i'm wondering why not do it anyway? >> thank you, that's a very good question. i think there are a couple of reasons why. first of all, as you've noted,

there is a lot of fear and anxiety around this issue. when you start to do tests in areas where there is no reason to suspect and there's no reason that you have any evidence that there would be any problem, the testing itself, even though it can be helpful, it can also cause more fear and anxiety and that is just as much of an issue as the actual scientific issue. but also i just wanted to state again that all of the areas that were these new designated areas of possible issues that they're going to investigate further through paperwork or whatever they need to do, they've all been scanned and there's been nothing above background. and i just wanted to give them a little bit of perspective because one speaker mentioned that. as i mentioned, there is radiation everywhere all the time every day. everybody is exposed to it. you have it in your own body.

and the average annual exposure for an individual is 6 20 milligram per year. this is an average. so, people who live in the sierra, whether it's higher soils that have a higher natural background level, they have maybe a higher end of that average. and people who get a lot of medical procedures with x-rays would have higher averages. but that average is you get a lot of it from medical exposures. there's radon in air you get it from, the soil, water, consumer project cosmic rays and industrial and occupational exposure. so, every human being in the u.s. has about that average on -- they have done studies and measured. in addition to that, this regulatory limit that i mentioned is that up to